CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
CW Applicant
-and-
The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley
Indexed As: CW v The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
CW, Applicant Poroshad Mahdi, Counsel
The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, Respondent Jodi Kaiman, Counsel
CHK, Proposed Added Party Ayaz Mehdi, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1In February 2025, the Applicant filed an Application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).
2The CFSRB found the Application eligible for review under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act. A hearing on the merits is scheduled for September 26, 2025.
3The Applicant and his former spouse are parents of one child. They have been engaged in family law proceedings for some time. The Respondent conducted several child protection investigations between 2020 and 2024 prompted by allegations each parent made against the other.
4On August 29, 2025, the Applicant’s former spouse (“Proposed Added Party”) filed a Notice of Motion (“the Motion”) seeking to be added as a party to this Application or granted full standing with party equivalent rights. Given the CFSRB’s confidentiality rules, it is unclear how the Proposed Added Party became aware of the Application.
5In a September 8, 2025 Case Management Direction (“CMD”), the CFSRB directed that the Motion would be heard in writing. The CMD directed that the Proposed Added Party could provide, by September 11, additional material in support of the Motion. It also directed the Applicant to provide his position on the Motion by September 12, and he did so. The Proposed Added Party did not follow the CMD’s direction. Rather than filing additional materials on September 11, she filed a Reply Affidavit after 5 p.m. on September 12. Notwithstanding the late filing, I have considered the Reply Affidavit in reaching my decision.
6The Applicant opposes the Motion. The Respondent has advised that it takes no position on the Motion.
ISSUES
7The issues are:
Should the CFSRB add the Proposed Added Party as a party to the proceeding or grant her full standing with party equivalent rights?
If the answer to question 1 is “no,” should the CFSRB order the Proposed Added Party to pay the Applicant’s costs?
RESULT
8The CFSRB finds:
It is not appropriate to add the Proposed Added Party as a party to the proceeding or grant her full standing with party equivalent rights. The Motion is dismissed.
The CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to award costs. The request for costs is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
9The Proposed Added Party submits that she has a significant interest in the outcome of the pending hearing and that her participation is necessary to “decide the issues fairly and completely.” She asserts that the CFSRB has the authority to add her and that her addition will not prejudice the existing parties.
10I agree with the Proposed Added Party that the CFSRB has the discretion to add a party to a proceeding where a proposed party has a significant interest in the outcome of the proceeding or their participation as a party is necessary to decide the issues before the CFSRB. For the reasons set out below, I find that the CFSRB should not exercise its discretion to make the Proposed Added Party a party or to grant her full standing with party equivalent rights.
The Proposed Added Party does not have a significant interest in the outcome of this proceeding
11If this proceeding focused on the substantive actions of the Respondent, the argument by the Proposed Added Party that she has a significant interest in the outcome of the pending hearing might be persuasive. But that is not the focus of this proceeding.
12The rights of individuals under section 120 of the Act are procedural rather than substantive rights. In this case, the hearing will focus on whether the Respondent met its obligations to the Applicant under sections 120(4)(4) and 120(4)5 of the Act. The hearing adjudicator will decide whether the Applicant’s concerns were heard by the Respondent and whether the Respondent provided the Applicant with meaningful reasons for decisions that affected his interests. The evidence before the hearing will thus focus on the quality of communication between the Applicant and the Respondent.
13The hearing will not focus on the Respondent’s substantive actions. Indeed, the CFSRB has no jurisdiction to make findings about whether various incidents of alleged harm to the child occurred. The CFSRB cannot make findings about the safety of the child while in the care of the Applicant, the Proposed Added Party, or their respective extended families. Nor can the CFSRB decide whether the Respondent’s verification decisions were justified.
14I note that the Proposed Added Party’s materials include a family court decision and she makes reference to “parallel court proceedings” and argues that the CFSRB must be consistent with the court. The upcoming hearing will not deal with any matters that are before the court or have been decided by the court as section 120(8)(a) of the Act bars the CFSRB from reviewing such matters.
15The Proposed Added Party’s Reply Affidavit demonstrates a misunderstanding of the issues before the CFSRB in this proceeding. She states that if added as a party, her evidence would be about the following issues:
… (a) what I reported and when; (b) what CAST told me; (c) what information and reasons, if any, were provided to me; and (d) whether I was afforded an opportunity to be heard where decisions affected my and C.’s interests.
16She further states:
… as a parent, I am entitled to be heard when decisions affecting my interests and those of my child are made, and that the Society owes me reasons when its decisions impact such interests.
17The Proposed Added Party’s rights under sections 120(4)(4) and 120(4)(5) of the Act are outside the scope of the pending hearing. While she is correct that she has rights under the Act to have her concerns heard and to be provided with reasons when a children’s aid society’s decisions affect her interests, that is not what this proceeding is about. As noted above, the pending hearing is only about whether the Respondent met its procedural obligations in its communications with the Applicant. It is not about the entirety of the Respondent’s interactions with the Applicant’s and the Proposed Added Party’s family. The question of whether the Respondent met its procedural obligations to the Proposed Added Party is distinct from whether the Respondent met its procedural obligations to the Applicant.
18The Proposed Added Party’s recourse if she felt that the Respondent had not met these obligations would have been to file her own application. She has not done so. Instead, she is attempting to inject herself into another individual’s application. This is inappropriate.
19The Applicant submits, and I agree, that “none of the relief I seek from the Board would affect [the Proposed Added Party’s] legal rights or parenting status.” The Divisional Court has recently confirmed that the remedies available in an application of this type are very limited: H.C. v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2025 ONSC 3742, at para 58.
20For these reasons, I conclude that the Proposed Added Party does not have a significant interest in the outcome of this proceeding.
The addition of the Proposed Added Party is not necessary to decide the issues before the CFSRB
21As noted above, the focus of the pending hearing will be on the quality of communication between the Applicant and the Respondent.
22The Applicant suggests that if evidence from the Proposed Added Party is necessary, then she could simply be called as a witness. Unless she was directly involved in the communication between the Applicant and the Respondent, it is unlikely that any of her potential evidence would be relevant let alone necessary to decide the issues before the CFSRB. Given that she is not on either party’s witness list and that no witness statement has been submitted summarizing her proposed testimony, any existing party seeking to call her as a witness would first need to obtain permission from the CFSRB. The decision on whether any witness will be permitted to testify rests ultimately with the hearing adjudicator.
The addition of the Proposed Added Party would prejudice the existing parties
23In her initial motion, the Proposed Added Party suggested a timetable for disclosure and submissions that would require a minimum of 85 days. In her Reply Affidavit, she modifies the suggested timetable to about 23 days. Either timetable requires the hearing scheduled for September 26, 2025 to be adjourned to some unknown future date.
24The parties have already provided the CFSRB with their materials for the pending hearing, including documents, witness statements and affidavits. The addition of a new party would likely necessitate a review and modification of those materials. It would also almost certainly lengthen the hearing.
25For these reasons, I conclude that the addition of the Proposed Added Party would prejudice the existing parties.
conclusion
26I have considered the submissions of the Proposed Added Party and the Applicant and have found that the Proposed Added Party does not have a significant interest in the outcome of this proceeding, that her involvement in the hearing is not necessary to decide the issues before the CFSRB, and that adding her to the proceeding would unduly delay the proceeding and prejudice the existing parties. Accordingly, I find that it would be inappropriate to add her as a party or to grant her full standing with party equivalent status.
costs
27I turn now to the Applicant’s request for costs. He asks the CFSRB to order the Proposed Added Party to pay the costs he incurred in responding to the Motion. While I see some merit in the Applicant’s submissions that this motion has put him to unnecessary expense and interfered in his preparation for the pending hearing, the CFSRB lacks the authority to order costs.
28In seeking costs, the Applicant relies on section 17 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 (“SPPA”) which permits a tribunal to award costs in some circumstances. To award costs, a tribunal must first make rules detailing when and how costs may be awarded. The CFSRB has not done so. Although the Applicant references Rules 24.1 and 24.6 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure, those rules do not address the matter of costs. Rather, they deal with the procedure of CFSRB hearings into complaints under section 120 of the Act. Further, sections 119(9) and 120(6) of the Act provide that the SPPA does not apply to the CFSRB in its review of complaints against a children’s aid society. Finally, the Divisional Court has confirmed that the CFSRB lacks the authority to order costs: Children’s Aid Society of the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry v S.V.D., 2016 ONSC 1688, at para 8. I find, therefore, that I am unable to grant the Applicant’s request for costs.
ORDER
29The Proposed Added Party’s motion is dismissed. The Applicant’s request for costs is dismissed.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
30Pursuant to Rules 9.3 and 9.4 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure, parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any CFSRB documents or decisions or any other documents or information provided or used in this Application with anyone, including through the media or online. The CFSRB prohibits the use of any of this information for any purpose outside of the CFSRB’s proceedings, except with an order of the Court or the CFSRB, as appropriate.
Dated, September 15, 2025.
Catherine Bickley
Catherine Bickley Vice-Chair